Ergonomization needs in GA

Perezgonzalez, Gilbey and Diaz Vilela explored the ergonomization needs of general aviation pilots in 2010³. Namely, they asked a group of pilots which technological features (including costs) they thought were important to their main general aviation flight activity. The group was mostly made of New Zealand and North American pilots flying for purposes such as training, instructing, business and recreation. Yet, it included airplane, helicopter and glider pilots, male and female pilots, and pilots with licences ranging from no-licence (ab-initio student) to ATPL.

The research found that, overall, the cost (of acquisition and operation) of any technology was the main worry for general aviation pilots (the results also suggested that this might be more important than any other benefit the technology may bring to their flying). Yet, among ergonomic features, all those supporting flight operations (from the calculation of weight and balance to traffic avoidance features) were also of medium importance. Less important were features such as tracking and real-time monitoring, followed by post-flight analysis and 3-D displays.

Table 1. Relative importance of ergonomization features to GA pilots
group of features	mean^*	interpretation
Low cost	3.4	medium importance
Flight support	2.8	medium importance
Monitoring	2.4	little importance
Post-flight analysis	2.0	little importance
3-D display	1.9	little importance
*average value out of 5⁵

Also of interest was the importance attached to cockpit ergonomization by the different demographic groups.

Ergonomization by gender

Overall, female pilots gave less importance to ergonomization (including costs) than male pilots.

Table 2. Relative importance of ergonomization features to GA pilots, by gender
group of features	male pilot^*	interpretation	female pilot^*	interpretation
Low cost	3.5	important	2.7	medium importance
Flight support	2.9	medium importance	2.0	little importance
Monitoring	2.4	little importance	1.6	little importance
Post-flight analysis	2.0	little importance	2.1	little importance
3-D display	1.9	little importance	1.5	little importance
*average value out of 5⁵

Ergonomization by aircraft type flown

Airplane pilots showed results similar to those discussed for the overall sample (see table 1). In contrast, helicopter pilots valued monitoring features more than other pilots, but also placed lesser importance on 3-D displays, while glider pilots considered both post-flight analysis features and costs as more important than the other two groups did.

Table 3. Relative importance of ergonomization features to GA pilots, by aircraft type most often flown
group of features	airplane pilot^*	interpretation	helicopter pilot^*	interpretation	glider pilot^*	interpretation
Low cost	3.4	medium importance	3.0	medium importance	4.0	important
Flight support	2.9	medium importance	2.5	medium importance	2.5	medium importance
Monitoring	2.3	little importance	3.5	important	2.0	little importance
Post-flight analysis	2.0	little importance	1.6	little importance	4.5	very important
3-D display	1.9	little importance	1.4	very little importance	2.0	little importance
*average value out of 5⁵

Ergonomization by flight activity

Commercial pilots (i.e. those operating for business) and recreational pilots gave, overall, less importance to ergonomization, although the latter group still considered low costs as being important. Pilots in training as well as instructors gave more importance to ergonomization. It is interesting that instructors considered 3-D displays as important, but the student pilots did not.

Table 4. Relative importance of ergonomization features to GA pilots, by main flight activity
group of features	pilot in training^*	interpretation	instructor^*	interpretation	commercial pilot^*	interpretation	recreational pilot^*	interpretation
Low cost	3.5	important	3.7	important	2.8	medium importance	3.5	important
Flight support	3.0	medium importance	3.2	medium importance	2.5	medium importance	2.2	little importance
Monitoring	2.8	medium importance	3.4	medium importance	2.1	little importance	1.1	very little importance
Post-flight analysis	2.5	medium importance	2.3	little importance	1.5	little importance	1.9	little importance
3-D display	2.0	little importance	3.6	important	1.6	little importance	1.3	very little importance
*average value out of 5⁵

Ergonomization by type of licence

Overall, the groups with the lowest (PPL) and the highest (ATPL) licences gave less importance to cockpit ergonomization than other pilots, while training pilots (without a licence) valued cockpit ergonomization more than the remaining groups.

Table 5. Relative importance of ergonomization features to GA pilots, by type of licence held
group of features	no licence^*	interpretation	PPL^*	interpretation	CPL^*	interpretation	ATPL^*	interpretation
Low cost	3.4	medium importance	3.4	medium importance	3.4	medium importance	3.2	medium importance
Flight support	3.1	medium importance	2.6	medium importance	3.1	medium importance	3.4	medium importance
Monitoring	3.2	medium importance	1.6	little importance	3.1	medium importance	2.0	little importance
Post-flight analysis	2.6	medium importance	1.7	little importance	2.0	little importance	2.1	little importance
3-D display	1.7	little importance	1.8	little importance	2.4	little importance	2.0	little importance
*average value out of 5⁵

Ergonomization by country

Overall, pilots valued ergonomization similarly, independent of country of residence or operation. However, the results might suggest that American pilots valued low costs slightly more and monitoring features slightly less than New Zealand pilots.

Table 6. Relative importance of ergonomization features to GA pilots, by country of residence
group of features	NZ pilot^*	interpretation	USA pilot^*	interpretation
Low cost	3.4	medium importance	3.5	important
Flight support	2.8	medium importance	3.1	medium importance
Monitoring	2.6	medium importance	1.5	little importance
Post-flight analysis	2.1	little importance	1.6	little importance
3-D display	1.8	little importance	2.1	little importance
*average value out of 5⁵

Research approach

This was an exploratory study of general pilots' valuation of new technologies for aviation.

Sample

A convenient sample of 70 general aviation pilots participated in the research.
The sample comprised the following demographics: New Zealand pilots (n=53), US pilots (n=16) pilots and 1 Australian pilot; men (n=66) and women (n=4); airplane pilots (n=63), helicopter pilots (n=5) and glider pilots (n=2); flying under training (n=22), while instructing (n=5), for business (n=15) and for recreation (n=12); and holding ho licence (n=11), PPL (n=24), CPL (n=22) and ATPL (n=6).

Materials

A questionnaire with a list of 22 technological features, adapted from Perezgonzalez and Lee (2009a¹, see also 2009b²). The questionnaire collated technological features present in three different GPS-based technologies with aviation applications: a real-time fleet tracking technology (Spidertracks), an iPhone application for tracking flight parameters for post-flight analysis, and a flight management system application which runs on Microsoft Windows-capable devices.
The questionnaire was placed online at SurveyMonkey.com. It required a valuation of each technological feature on a 6-point Likert scale ranging from "0, Not important" to "5, Very important".

Procedure

An invitation to participate in the research was made to the president or secretary of aviation clubs and aviation schools listed both in an in-house list of New Zealand clubs and in an international list of clubs hosted by ThirtyThousandFeet.com. The proviso was for them to pass the invitation to other members of the club, as well.
They were provided with a link to the online survey, for completion.
All responses were anonymous.

Data analysis

Quantitative analyses, including univariate (namely descriptives), multivariate (principal component analysis) and bi-variate analyses (t-tests for independent samples), using SPSS version 16.
The principal component analysis produced 5 components, which were subsequently used as variables, instead of the 22 single technological variables.

Generalization potential

Given the exploratory approach of the research and the small sample and its convenience, the results from this study may not have enough scope for generalization. They could be indicative of similar attitudes in the following 'populations' (in order of decreasing generalization power):

General aviation pilots with characteristics similar to this sample, namely New Zealand and US pilots, male, mostly using airplanes, flying for business, recreation or under training, and holding either a private or commercial licence.
General aviation pilots of similar characteristics but working in other countries than New Zealand and the US.

Author

Jose D PEREZGONZALEZ (2010). Massey University, Turitea Campus, Private Bag 11-222, Palmerston North 4442, New Zealand. (JDPerezgonzalez).

Peer-reviewers

Stuart ANDERSON (2010). School of Aviation, Massey University, New Zealand (stuartanderson).
Amber WAN (2010). School of Aviation, Massey University, New Zealand (Amber Wan).

Want to know more?

AviationKnowledge - Ergonomization: This AviationKnoweldge page offers links to further information on aviation ergonomization.
Perezgonzalez et al's (2010) article: The original article provides further detail about the research. You can find it under the "2010 Symposium Proceedings" tab, as PEREZGONZALEZ Jose D (2010). Reliability analysis of assisted-GPS technologies for post-flight analysis. Aviation Education and Research Proceedings, volume 2010, pages 53-54. ISSN 1176-0729.
Wiki of Science - Ergonomization needs of student pilots: This Wiki of Science page summarizes the pilot study behind the research described here.